R. v. Shayne (S.D.), (2004) 383 A.R. 194 (QB)

• Judge: Ross, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 08, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 383 A.R. 194 (QB);2004 ABQB 189

R. v. Shayne (S.D.) (2004), 383 A.R. 194 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. MR.184

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Stephen David Shayne (applicant)

(020130159Q1; 2004 ABQB 189)

Indexed As: R. v. Shayne (S.D.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Ross, J.

March 11, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was charged with four counts of robbery and three counts of committing robberies while masked. The accused allegedly robbed three banks while masked, and a liquor store. The accused applied to sever the counts (four trials) or, alternatively, to sever the liquor store count from the six counts respecting the three bank robberies.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application to the extent of severing the liquor store robbery count from the six bank robbery counts.

Criminal Law - Topic 4480

Procedure - Trial - Separate trials for each count in an indictment - The accused allegedly robbed three banks while masked, and a liquor store - He was charged with four counts of robbery and three counts of being masked - The accused applied under s. 591(3)(a) of the Criminal Code to sever the counts (four separate trials) or, alternatively, to sever the liquor store count from the six bank robbery counts - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench severed the liquor store count from the six counts respecting the three bank robberies - The Crown was seeking to admit similar fact evidence to identify the accused as the person who committed all three bank robberies - The bank robbery counts accordingly had a legal and factual nexus, since the Crown might establish that all three robberies were committed by the same person - However, there was no legal or factual nexus between the bank robberies and the liquor store robbery - The Crown conceded the inadmissibility of similar fact evidence respecting the liquor store count - Accordingly, the interests of justice required severance of that count from the others.

Criminal Law - Topic 4737.1

Procedure - Indictment - Count - Indictable offences - Severing counts in an indictment - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4480 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. A.J., 2001 ABQB 492, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Mousseau (T.M.) (2002), 309 A.R. 255; 2002 ABQB 191, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. M.L. et al. (1998), 215 A.R. 295 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Cross (1996), 112 C.C.C.(3d) 410 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

Bonnie Parker, for the respondent;

Arnold Piragoof, Q.C., for the applicant.

This application was heard on March 8, 2004, before Ross, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on March 11, 2004.